Player Ratings???????????? Topic

Most vets of the game universally agree that OVR rating is meaningless with respect to player value and performance. Players can be over-valued or under-valued in their OVR rating due to extremely high or low numbers in non-core ratings.

Posted by tecwrg on 9/27/2012 2:10:00 PM (view original):Most vets of the game universally agree that OVR rating is meaningless with respect to player value and performance. Players can be over-valued or under-valued in their OVR rating due to extremely high or low numbers in non-core ratings.

Yep. Although I cannot think of a player with 90+ OVR who sucks. Example, or was that hyperbole? I'd say anything in the mid-70s to low-80s and the player might not be worth a damn despite a flashy OVR, but once you get over that 85'ish hump they are almost certainly going to be good players. What tec said holds true -- a guy with an 82 OVR might not be as valuable as a guy rocking the 72 OVR (for a variety of reasons, i.e. position played, health/durability) -- but I also think an extremely high OVR works as shorthand for identifying good players.

Not a 90+ player, but he peaked at 83 OVR. I played him at 3B for a number of seasons, including his peak. Played solid defense at 3B, but never did much with the bat, only OPSing over .700 one time with me in six ML seasons.

While an 83 OVR might seem attractive, he never felt to me worthy of an 80+ overall.

Not a 90+ player, but he peaked at 83 OVR. I played him at 3B for a number of seasons, including his peak. Played solid defense at 3B, but never did much with the bat, only OPSing over .700 one time with me in six ML seasons.

While an 83 OVR might seem attractive, he never felt to me worthy of an 80+ overall.

Looks like he has unusually high - and unnecessary - pitching ratings for a position player. Am I correct in reading that these would drive his OA up, to no positive effect?

The worst offenders for having high OVR, but not being that great are the almost SS guys who are also almost good hitters. Telford is actually better than some I've seen. They can be even more worthless when they have 95+ durability. On the pitching side, it is the SPs with 90+ stamina and 30+ durability or the RPs with those ratings swapped who have mediocre core ratings. Typically these guys do have some value at the ML level, but the problem is that the value is dimished by the size of contract that their overall rating causes them to demand.

Clearly the key is to try to get the players with the required defensive ratings for their position with the best core hitting ratings and to pretty much ignore overall ratings other than for purposes of budget planning. You can use overall rating to guess how much you will have to pay your younger guys once they are ready to arb or sign long term deals so you can plan financially for the future.

83 OVR. Not a bad player but not really a CF or 2B, positions where his bat would be valuable. Doesn't have the arm for 3B. So he's a GG-quality LF who doesn't hit the postion or a decent hitting CF who doesn't field the position.

Was a guy on my team I had for a while who I was chronically disappointed in his offense. His 90+ health, durability and arm strength really drive his OVR rating. For an 87 OVR player, a .749 career OPS is pretty lackluster. Granted he did play many of his early seasons in pitchers parks like SD and OAK... but still...

PS- He also has an 88 in patience... I assume that would also drive up his OVR. Can anybody comment on that to confirm?

OVR is a good indicator to start with (I always look at it first). But it can trick you. Once you look at the OVR, you need to look at the individual ratings relative to the position you need him to fill. Do those ratings help you? Keep in mind that OVR is going to indicate the amount of money he is going to want to be paid, either now or later.

Everybody knows that HBD ratings are king, and they all try to get the most highly rated players, by whatever means (draft, IFA, trades, FA). So you pretty much know every other owner is trying to fill his roster with as many highly rated guys as they can. So how do you win consistently?

By then looking deeper. I have received very good value back on guys with OVR that are low. A relief pitcher with an OVR of 58, but has the right core ratings to give you a goose egg inning every other game. A backup infielder with an OVR of 61, but the can hit lefty's and run the bases well with speed, or pick it.

If you look at teams rosters, you will see the great teams with about 5+ guys over OVR over 80. Then the thick middle of their roster will be populated with about 10-15 guys in the OVR 70-80 range. The superstars and the core. But that isn't what makes the team great. It is the bottom guys, the ones with OVR's of below 70 (usually about 5 of them on any given good roster). These guys are handpicked for a reason. They are cheap, and they have core ratings that help the team win, that make the team better than the other owner who got his 5 80+'ers, along with the ML average core, but neglected to look deeper.

One thing that OVR is somewhat useful for is as a "red flag" for trouble.

Once you get some experience with the game and player ratings, you tend to get a gut feeling for what a ballpark OVR might be for a particular player based on his core ratings. If you see a guy with strong core ratings but he has an OVR that falls below what you might expect, then you're prompted to look at the non-core ratings to try to figure out why. Maybe he has abnormally low durability (for a position player), or abnormally low health, etc. These are things that you probably should always look at, but possibly don't. Low OVR is a great red flag for that.